Talk:Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society

Original proof of the board of directors not disclosed by the Jehova Witness organization. Citing a rewrite which contains no reference is not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs)

Proposal to redirect

This article is poorly written and contains information that already exists in Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. I propose turning this article into a redirect to the above article. BlackCab (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it. It has several quality issues, but aside from that, it is merely an extract of information already at the main article. Any additional information intended for this article should be merged into the main article instead. If this article were improved and expanded, it would then be even more appropriate to merge it with the other article about the same corporation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The later organizations are filled with information that has no bearing on the Zions Watchtower and Tract Society. Also the article put forth by you guys at the redirected location is unreferenced or outright untrue. I fyou would like to add to the history of the ZWTS then pelse add it but please do not bury it in information about Rutherford, Russell and the Jehova Witness group. BACnet (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need a much better justification for the tenuous distinction you are trying to make here. If the other article has problems, fix them there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Is this article warranted, as distinct from Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Redirect proposal on Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.-Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not warranted - merge with main article as proposed. DaveApter (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not warranted - I agree with the above, however I am a little concerned about how quickly the article was redirected, especially given that it was done by the person starting the RFC to redirect it. One person commenting two days after the start of a 30 day RFC doesn't particularly show a clear consensus. The redirect should have have been delayed, at the very least to make it easier for the community to see the disputed page without having to go through the history. --13² 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about the early redirect. However, the article was created primarily because an editor disagrees with the history in available sources (which he considers 'pro-Russell') and wanted a separate article to present a more 'pro-Conley' view. In principle, separate articles should not exist for such a purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not warranted - For the record. As discussed earlier, the article deals with the very brief and evidently unremarkable period of the Watch Tower Society under its original name. Any history can adequately be dealt with under the main article, which charts the succession of name changes. BlackCab (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]